No one ever suggested trading a highly efficient 23 point per game scorer for him last year. Most theoretical deals were just a matter of packaging a few draft picks (or Brooks, once we all started hating Brooks). The kid is a nice playmaker, but is averaging 5 points on 30% field goal shooting against lesser competition than he would face in the NBA. He's far from a sure thing; in fact, he would be a project by most's definition. That said, some of your points are valid, nice try, but I seriously couldn't make it past that line.
Of course i would seek value for them. I trust our front office to get something good in return , but i also think that the value we get for them should apply more to the future than the current team. At the same time ... i wouldn't automatically shun a trade just because i didn't think we were getting equal value back. It would be alot like the Alston trade ... the main reason we traded him was to get Brooks playing time... it just so happened that a few years later Lowry was the real benefit from that trade ( at the time no one thought lowry was the real deal ) That is the type of trade we need to make with Martin and Scola... not nessecarily because the backups we have will be better. BUT. they might and we need to figure out this next season whether or not 2Pat and Lee are capable of being starters. To do that they need real minutes 30 a game at least. I happen to like Harden and think the Rubio has gone from overrated to underrated.. those two trades are just example of players who definantly have the potential to improve and become contributors. In addition to the picks we have and the young core we have ( lowry, lee, williams, 2pat, hill, thabeet, budinger, dragic ) we can quickly and efficiently rebuild or at least determine whether or not that core is worthy of being our futuer.
Nice post...I appreciate the time you put into it...BUT I would cry if the offseason unfolded this way. I'd like to trade Scola and Bud with some picks or other players and see what that could get us. I think we could get something of pretty good value in return. Also, I think trading Martin wouldn't be a dealbreaker but I think we should try hard to keep him on the roster. He's the kind of player that is such a luxury to have on a contending team as the second or third option.
PG went from a position of need in Rubio's year to what is probably now our second deepest position behind PF and our most talented position just accounting for the first two guys on the depth chart. At this point I don't think you consider trading Lowry for any other point guard in the league besides Chris Paul or Derrick Rose. And Rose ain't happenin.
I agree that Martin is a nice luxury on a contending team .... but if you trade scola and dont get a legit center back, then we are not gonna be contending anyways and we would just be wasting martin. Thanks for the response and i know that our front office is putting just as much discussion into what direction to choose as we are. i just hope that if we choose to try to contend we go all out and dont make a brad miller type signing to backup yao once he "comes back from injury". As for the previous post, remember that we got Martin for Carl Landry and the kings wanted to let tyreke take over. Rubio is just a suggestion and i know that PG is now a strong position for us but 2 years from now Rubio could be a nice piece. Look the whole Rubio for Martin deal may have been a mistake but when trying to think of a team that has a need for martin.... that has a good prospect for us... there just arent too many options. And dont worry i wouldnt ever trade lowry ... i see him as the future ... while scola and kevin not so much. Sure Martin and Scola are nice players, but they are 3rd options on a contending team and they dont contribute in any way besides scoring. Basically Yao would have to come back healthy and we would have to get that 2nd star ( maybe lowry could become that) just to contend.. and i just dont think thats very likely. I think at this point it is better to trade them and build for the future. Yea.... a season of losing would suck. It would suck bad. But the sooner we start , the sooner we get better. Those are just my thoughts... thanks for all of the feedback guys
Fixed i never understood why would people want to trade bud. Let him develop. He was never Crappy Old Man Rock, just wasn't as good as he needed to be defensively as he needed to be. Hill, however, is the ****tiest player we have, never understood the love for him. Let's trade him, keep your fingers crossed.
I actually like Hill more than Bud. Both of their main defeciencies are mental in nature. Bud is a wimp ... and Hill gets lost too much.. I think that Hill has improved much more over the course of the year than bud has. If bud has a bad shooting night what else does he contribute ? Hill at least plays ok individual defense(needs to work on team D) and can finish like a man and dunk the ball . Bud just lays it in..... i think in 2 years, if guided with care, Hill will become the better player.
It's true that if he doesn't have his shot than he'll drive it in but the layups he does have a high percentage of going in. Last nights game, for example, he had a horrible shooting night and was making a decent amount of layups. Also, he is a very underrated passer. IF he were to continue to improve defensively I really think he has all star potential. From my what I've seen of hill, -Only move in post is hook shot, dunk, or jumper. -poor finisher -no footwork (does the same move every time) -can't control the ball/ leads to turnovers -makes horrible fouls I can't see the potential in him.
Far from it. He's not afraid to get hurt laying it up. Bud's highlight reel of dunks is far more impressive than Hill's, by a lot.
Bud rarely drives if his shot isnt going in.... if he does, he doesnt create it himself, he comes off of a pick. Of course his layups have a fairly high percentage of going in- they are layups.. still Bud plays timidly and i cant ever see him living up to his potential. Hill who was widely considered a project coming out of college has put in more work than bud and i feel has the higher ceiling. Hill started to play ball alot later than Bud and his main problem right now is that he has to think too much before he makes a move... with experiece that problem goes away. No doubt i would love for bud to start to live up to his potential but i think his personallity is just to relaxed for that to ever happen. I dont think he will ever become anything more than a spot up shooter/ occasional highlight dunk because of his athleticism. I would love for him to prove me wrong though. Hill is also a much better individual defender than Bud. Bud is getting beat by both SG's and SF's he plays against. The only thing Hill struggles with is when matched up against centers. He is a PF and his defense against PF's at least on an individual level has been quite good. I hate that Adelman will play him out of position at Center... he is just not big enough.He is a fast, skinny PF i expect him to get pushed around in the paint when matched up against a Center.
Bud isn't a great starter. He's more of instant offense off the bench, which is why we need a legit SF. We should trade Scola + Twill + Hill for Granger and a 2nd pick.This removes the log-jam and gain money from the trade. The next thing to do is let a legit C. We could attempt at M.Gasol or Jordan this year or wait and pray D12 wants to go here when Thabeet's 6mil is off the books.
The only problem with doing that is that we pray that we can sign one of those FA's .... if not then we are in exactly the same position. Also i view Bud as a poor mans Granger. Granger took a step back this year and doesnt play alot of defense either. Of course I'd rather have him than bud.... but i think that he isnt really worth going after unless we can get him really cheap. But then again you guys already know that i favor blowing it up rather than trying to contend next season. I would give T-will a shot to start next season for 2 reasons. Number one i think he has more potential with budinger and is a better fit as a more defensive minded player. Number 2 - hopefully a demotion will give bud back some of that fire, and put a chip on his shoulder that allowed him to play with the same attitude that he played with his Rookie year. He became too complacent. Again thanks for the feedback
Budinger is better than Hill, and that's why we should trade him. You gotta give something to get something man. I think Budinger is good enough to get us a valuable piece back but not good enough to start...he's not strong enough defensively and he gets discouraged WAY too easily. If he misses his first shot you might as well kiss his entire night goodbye. Again, he's a solid player, but I don't want him to start.
I'm OK with trading anybody for value, but I'd keep Lowry / Martin / Lee / Dragic. I hate Martin's defense, but he's a very good overall player, as long as we don't have too many minutes going to poor defenders such as Martin / Scola / Bud. Between Hayes / PPatt / Scola / Hill, I would trade one; two if we bring in a defensive center that deserves 20 mins / game. Scola is my choice to go, because I think we can bring back something nice for him, but I also think we should let PPatt and Hill grow, if possible. Again, I'd trade anybody if we need to do so to bring back a pretty good player. I would be happy to lose Bud, but the minimum I want to see at SF are two players of his level. The important players to bring back are: 1) defensive center, 2) a very good defender, such as Battier (but younger), who can defend 2-4, and 3) another SF at least as good as Bud, that can play decent defense. 2) and 3) can be the same player. If possible, I would like to add to our draft picks for the future. Of the rest, 1) Miller doesn't hurt as a player, but I'd like to lose his contract. 2) Thabeet, I'd flip a coin. Heads, we don't sign him for the following season. 3) T-Will: I would keep him, and re-sign him 10/31 for the following season. I would keep him on the bench until he deserves better. I don't think we can get a first-rounder back for him, so we may as well give him an extra year. OTOH, if we draft three players, we will have a numbers problem, because that damn DM will probably bring in three decent (or better) players, and not make any 2-for-1 trades until we have to lose a decent player for nothing. This is one of DM's faults; he won't keep a roster slot open for the future. Instead of trading the last guy for a future 2nd, he hangs onto him until we lose him for nothing. Another is, he refuses to lose a trade: he won't trade an 8 player (1-10 scale) for a 7 center.
sorry for my english... Ricky Rubio as a Rocket? I'm from Europe and watch him playing in Euroleague. his talent last two years didn't move forward. he's not a starter at Barcelona and i don't see him in any NBA club. he does not have 3 point shut, bad D, he have unnecessary outages, he thing he's a star... On last series in Euroleague Panathinaikos tactit was left him a lot of space for shots, but he has not used it at all. Panatinaikos win and classified to "Final For" in.... yea, Barcelona.. "wonder child" only because he is a Spain guy in a Spain club. Juan Carlos Navarro is >>> then Ricky and we know how was he playing at Memphis Grizzlies... I know that NBA and Euroleague are 2 different worlds, but still don't see him there.
2012 is the right year, just the way to get there is different. No yao,hayes,miller or scola on the roster this season.
PB, you bring up some good points, but i think that unless our coaches hand is forced ( trading away players) He is gonna stick with giving too many minutes to Bud/Scola/Martin. Our roster problem can be fixed by trading players for future picks or for prospects overseas. I just dont think we are gonna be able to find a servicable center which makes the whole possibility of contending a moot point. As for Rubio i dont really care .. he just fit what i was looking for. A player who doesnt take up a roster spot, One that has decent potential. I'm not particularly in love with him but I don't have another good trade scenario for martin off the top of my head.
Scola is about the only post player we have that can draw double team. Sure, he isn't an athletic freak but he's very valuable to this team. IF you guys want to trade him, you better get a decent player back. This team is missing Yao once he went down. If they can find a big man superstar that a least half as good as Yao, they're a contender...but that's going to be hard. They absolutely need to use their draft picks to get a big man no doubt about it. That's a crucial position if the Rockets want to contend. Someone like Baynum would have made a huge difference.
Exactly and since i dont think we will be able to land a decent big this offseason. I would rather tank next year... to be able to be in a good position for 2012 and the years after that. If we cant get a big through FA next year, is there a better chance of geting one the year after? I would rather wait until a real prospect center is coming out like an Andre Drummond that hedge our hopes on mid round project bigs ever panning out.
